Interpreting Matters PDF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Production
Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA)
University of Westminster
Nuffield Interpreter Project
Interpreting Matters Video

Produced by CONNECT ELT for the University of Westminster and the Immigration Appellate Authority
supported by funding from the Nuffield Interpreter Project
Script Joe Hambrook

Course design Jack Lonergan
IAA consultant Reena Rose
Director Tommy Schwarcz
Producer Barry Tomalin
Cast
First appeal Professor David Casson Second appeal Professor David Casson
Chaudhury Shajait Heather Imari
Akhram Minhas ChristianeTod
Dina Rawal Hugh Closs
Julian Cooper Julian Cooper
Ray Mason Tracy Lamb
Interpreting Matters Book

Developed by CONNECT Professional for the University ofWestminster
and the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA)
IBI multimedia
RO, Box 2449, Chelmsfond, Essex, CM2 7PA, England
Tel: +44 (0) 1245 473434
Fax: +44 (0) I 245 472722
e-mail1 bi@;englishlive.co.uk
nternet: http://xvww.englishlive.co.uk
© Connect ELT 1997

© IBI multimedialConnecl ELT 1999
Activity book ISBN I 899399 56 9

Videocassette ISBN I 899399 51 8
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of IBI multimedia
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent,
resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any shape or form
of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser
Foreword V
CHAPTER I Introduction I
CHAPTER 2 Dealing with Evidence
Case Study I Part 1 6
CHAPTER 3 Culture and Conduct
Case Study I Part 2 13
CHAPTER 4 Interacting with the Client
Case Study 2 Part I 18
CHAPTER 5 Dealing with Problems
Case Study 2 Part 2 24
Summary of Learning Points 28
CHAPTER 6 The Adjudicator's View 29
Appendix I Complete Video Script 36
Appendix 2 Interpreter's Code of Conduct 47
Oath and Affirmation
Information and further reading 49

III
Interpreting Matters is the first course on video to show interpreting in action. It focuses
on the role of the interpreter in the courtroom and in particular on interpreting in a
British Immigration Appellate Authority court. However, the lessons of this environment
are extended in the accompanying book to other areas of public service interpreting.
Through two dramatised case studies based on real-life observation, Interpreting Matters
shows interpreters at work in the courtroom, analyses their behaviour and provides
pointers for good professional practice. Following the case studies, the court adjudicator.
Professor David Casson, adds his own comments on the role and behaviour of the
interpreter and provides helpful advice to practising and would-be interpreters. This
makes Interpreting Matters ideal material for initial or in-service interpreter training or
home-study reference.
The Interpreting Matters book and video materials are a result of initiatives from the
Nuffield Interpreter Project.The University ofWestminster has been involved in training
public service interpreters, running the innovatory Diploma in Community Interpreter
Training Techniques, as well as courses in a variety of languages, including Mandarin
Chinese, leading to the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (Legal Option) set by the
Institute of Linguists (loL).The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) works with public
service interpreters in a very wide range of languages and runs its own in-house staff
training.The University and the IAA collaborated to produce these materials, assisted by
a generous grant from the Nuffield Interpreter Project.
Although the scenes in these materials are realistic and based on issues raised in court,
the two appellants whose cases are heard are entirely fictitious and bear no resemblance
to any actual person.
Professor Jack Lonergan

University ofWestminster
1999
V
INTRODUCTION
Interpreting Matters is intended for public service interpreters, especially those involved in
legal proceedings, and for trainers of interpreters in this field.The course materials consist
of a 30-minute video and this accompanying book.
The video is based on two case studies and illustrates some of the issues which arise
in court interpreting. The setting is an immigration appeals courtroom in the United
Kingdom and there are extracts from two appeals against Home Office refusals to grant
political asylum. Each extract is followed by a review of points arising from the
interpreter's role in the appeal proceedings. The video ends with a summary of these
points and an interview with the court adjudicator, who gives his own view of the
interpreter's role.
This book provides study material for each video extract and extends the scope of the
case studies in the video to other areas of legal and public service interpreting. Each study
chapter is supported by the relevant video script, and a key with explicit or suggested
answers to comprehension and discussion questions.
Reference points of interest to public service interpreters are included in a series of

useful appendices.
How to use Interpreting Matters
It is strongly recommended that you start by watching the whole video. Since it contains
explanations and specific learning points, you do not need to take notes at this stage.
Next, you should work through the book chapter by chapter, studying the
corresponding video extracts in detail, as indicated by the instructions in the book.The
organisation of Chapters 2 to 6 is outlined on page 2.
You can repeat any part of the video whenever you wish in order to reinforce your
work with the book.You are also encouraged to take notes of additional points that occur
to you while watching the video and studying the book, and especially points of
comparison between the situations featured in Interpreting Matters and other fields of
interpreting that are relevant to your own work.
I
Chapters 2 - 5
Each of these chapters is divided into five sections, as follows:
SECTION A Preview and Preparation

This section explains the learning objectives of the relevant case study, tells you about the
people you will see in the video and introduces the 'story' of the video extract.
SECTION B Video study

This section focuses on the video extract and explores the situation described in the case
study. It invites you to observe points of the interpreter's behaviour as you watch the
video.
SECTION C Learning points

This section identifies the key learning points for the interpreter that emerge from the
case study.
SECTION D The interpreter's role

This section invites you to apply the points identified in Section C to other situations that
might arise in public service interpreting.
Each chapter is followed by the video transcript and answer key.
At the end of Chapter 5 key learning points from the video are summarised under
language, behaviour and culture.
Chapter 6
This chapter focuses on a series of questions posed in interview to the adjudicator,
Professor David Casson, and invites you to consider and apply his views to other areas of
public service interpreting.
IMMIGRATION APPEALS*
Like most countries, the United Kingdom has immigration controls and procedures based
on passports, visas, residence permits and work permits. Sometimes people arrive in the
country without the necessary documents or with documents which are not suitable for
the purpose they give for entry into the UK. In some of these cases, they may be held by
the Home Office immigration authorities at airports or seaports while their application
for entry is considered. In other cases, people may be detained if they are found to have
entered or stayed in the UK under false pretences.
Whenever an immigrant who does not speak English is detained, an interpreter will be
made available to relay questions and answers to and from the authorities determining the
merits of the immigrants case.
"'These notes refer to procedures in force in 1997. Appeals procedures

have been modified since the making of the /n?e/p;ef/ng /Viewers video.
2
Anyone who is ordered to leave the country in these circumstances has the right to
appeal against deportation. Such appeals are dealt with by the Immigration Appellate
Authority of the Home Office at a hearing presided over by an adjudicator. The Home
Office is represented by a presenting officer and the immigrant (called the appellant) may
be represented and assisted by lawyers or other witnesses if he or she wishes. A qualified
interpreter is present if required.
Appeals are heard in an Immigration Appellate Authority court, which, as you will see,
is a special court with its own terminology for judge, counsel and other participants.
However, as you will quickly appreciate, the principles of court interpreting - sometimes
called three-cornered, liaison, or situational interpreting - remain the same.
In hearings such as those in the video, the appellant's representative presents the appeal
case by asking the appellant questions through his/her interpreter. The Home Office
presenting officer, who is a lawyer, then cross-examines the appellant about his/her story.
There may also be evidence from witnesses. The adjudicator listens and writes the
evidence down, and finally delivers his/her judgement.
The two case studies in Interpreting Matters show appeals against Home Office refusals
to grant political asylum.The appellants, MrVijay Malhotra, from India, and Mrs RoseToure,
from Cote d'lvoire, have requested political asylum, which has been refused.They are now
appealing against this decision.
You can see the people involved in these two appeals on page 5. Their roles can be
summarised as follows:
Participant Role Identification card

in courtroom
Adjudicator Member of the judiciary who ADJUDICATOR
hears the appeal in court
Clerk to the Court official responsible for (no identification card)

Adjudicator administration, paperwork, etc
Appellant's Solicitor or adviser from an APPELLANT
Representative immigration or law centre,
nominated by the appellant
to represent him/her at the
court hearing
Home Office Home Office official who RESPONDENT

Presenting responds to the appeal
Officer
3
Appellant Individual appealing against WITNESS
Home Office decision
Interpreter Official interpreter hired by the (no identification card)

Immigration Appellate Authority
The identification cards shown in the video follow the standard practice of the
Immigration Appellate Authority court.The appellant is identified as a witness and his or
her representative as the appellant for the purpose of the court. The Home Office
presenting officer is the respondent to the appeal on behalf of the Secretary of State.
In the courtroom, the participants in such appeals are often arranged like this:
ADJUDICATOR
Clerk to the Other witnesses

Adjudicator (if any)
Appellant's Home Office

Representative Presenting Officer
Appellant Interpreter
Usually the hearing goes through the following stages:
Opening procedures (eg identification of appellant, interpreter, etc)
Presentation of appellant's case
Cross-examination by Home Office presenting officer
Presentation of Home Office presenting officer's case
Cross-examination by appellant's representative
Adjudication by adjudicator
4
The people involved in each appeal hearing featured in Interpreting Matters are as
follows:
Appeal hearing I
ADJUDICATOR CLERK APPELLANT'S

Professor David Casson Mr Ray Mason REPRESENTATIVE
Ms Dina Stevens
HOME OFFICE APPELLANT INTERPRETER

PRESENTING OFFICER MrVijay Malhotra Mr Akram Minnas
Mr Julian Cooper
Appeal hearing 2
ADJUDICATOR CLERK APPELLANT'S

Professor David Casson Ms Tracy Lamb REPRESENTATIVE
Mr Hugh Closs
HOME OFFICE APPELLANT INTERPRETER

PRESENTING OFFICER Mrs RoseToure Mrs Christine Teytaud
Mr Julian Cooper
5
DEALING WITH EVIDENCE
CASE STUDY I PART I: MrVijay Malhotra
A PREVIEW and PREPARATION

Objectives
You will learn about
• dealing with complex or detailed evidence.
• asking for questions to be repeated, rephrased or slowed down.
• addressing interpreted statements and questions to the appropriate person.
• translating exactly what is said in evidence.
Participants
Adjudicator: Professor David Casson
Interpreter: Mr Akram Minhas
Appellant: MrVijay Malhotra
Appellant's legal representative: Ms Dina Stevens
The story so far

MrVijay Malhotra, the appellant, arrived from India six weeks ago, using a friend's passport
with his own photograph substituted.This was not detected and he was given permission
to visit members of his alleged family in the UK. One week later, he was found working in
a rakeaway kitchen and was detained.
When his true identity was revealed, Mr Malhotra immediately applied for political
asylum, claiming that for several years he had belonged to a political party which had been
oppressed and that he would be arrested and tortured if he returned to India. He claimed
that some of his relatives in India had been tortured because of their political beliefs and
activities, and that one had been shot during a demonstration, although he personally had
not suffered at the hands of the the authorities.
On investigation, it was found that Mr Malhotra had entered the UK illegally four years
ago and was subsequently removed. He had not previously attempted to seek political
asylum.
Mr Malhotra speaks Punjabi and appears to know a little English.
B VIDEO STUDY
These questions focus on important points in the court proceedings and the role of the
interpreter. (See pages 9-1 2 for the video transcript and suggested answer key.)
Watch the first part of Mr Malhotra's hearing.
6
1 Why does the interpreter have difficulty with the legal representative's questions?
a) His English is too weak.
b) The questions are too long.
c) The questions are irrelevant.
2 What does the adjudicator do to help the interpreter?

a) He explains the questions.
b) He asks the representative to speak more slowly.
c) He asks the representatives to speak more simply.
3 How does the appellant then react to the representative's question?

a) He asks for repetition.
b) He denies it.
c) He confirms it.
4 Why doesn't the interpreter immediately repeat the question to the appellant?
a) He doesn't understand the question.
b) He doesn't know how to translate the question.
c) He must first translate the appellant's response to the court.
5 The following words are used in court. What do they refer to? Complete the box
below.
1 all rise a find out

2 Hindu b the adjudicator
3 ascertain c please look at
4 swear the appellant d please stand up
5 the Bhagavad Gita e an Indian language
6 Sir f one of India's state religions
7 may I refer you to g ask the appellant to take the oath
8 Punjabi h the Hindu sacred book
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note that the Immigration Appellate Authority court conducts its business in a different
way from criminal, civil or juvenile courts, industrial tribunals, or other legal bodies. Details
of court procedure, such as calling the judge the adjudicator or how the oath is
administered, are specific to this context. Nevertheless, the principles guiding the court
interpreter's role are similar to those in other courtroom situations.
7
C LEARNING POINTS
Read the following questions which focus on significant points in the court proceedings
and people's behaviour in court.
Make your own notes; you may wish to watch the video again at this point.
Now answer the questions.
1 Why was the interpreter at a disadvantage when the appellant's representative asked
her question at the beginning of the appeal?
2 How did the representative handle a lot of detailed facts involved in questions and
evidence?
3 When the representative repeated her question, did she use exactly the same words as
when she first asked the question? Did this affect the meaning in any way?
D THE INTERPRETER'S ROLE

1 What differences do you see in the role of the interpreter during the opening scene of
oath-taking and during the rest of the proceedings. Which matches your professional
role?
2 When the appellant's representative put her question at the beginning of the appeal, the
interpreter was at a disadvantage, as he did not have to hand all the facts and dates that
the representative quoted. What can interpreters do when there is a lot of detail
involved in questions and evidence?
3 When the representative repeated her question, she did not use exactly the same
words as when she first asked the question. Does this matter, and what should an
interpreter do in such circumstances?
4 What did you notice about the interpreter's clothing and manner? What is the
appropriate clothing and manner in situations you work in?
8
CASE STUDY I PART I: KEY
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
COMM: Two appellants...
... and two court interpreters:
Mr Akram Minhas and
Mrs ChristianeTeytaud
Mr Minhas has been assigned to interpret in the appeal of MrVijay
Malhotra...
COMM: Vijay Malhotra comes from India. He applied for political asylum on the
grounds that he would face persecution if he returned home.
His application was rejected and he is appealing against the Secretary
of State's refusal to grant asylum.
CLERK: All rise.
ADJ: Please sit down.

(To REP) Miss Stevens, are we ready to proceed with this appeal?
REP: Yes sir.
ADJ: Good. (To HOPOj Mr Cooper?
HOPO: Yes sir.
ADJ: Good, very well. (To /NT) Mr Minhas, good morning.
INT: Morning, sir.
ADJ: Have you been able to speak to this appellant yet?
INT: I haven't sir, but I will with your permission.
ADJ: Please do so.
INT: Thank you sir. (Speaks to APP in Punjabi, the to ADJ).

Sir, we can understand each other perfectly and the language is Punjabi.
ADJ: Very good. Have you ascertained the appellant's religion?
INT: No sir, but again I will do with your permission, sir.

(Speaks to APP in Punjabi, then to AD].)
Sir, he's a Hindu.
ADJ: Very good. Will you please swear the appellant, Mr Minhas?
INT: Yes sir. (Speaks to APP in Punjabi.)
COMM: An important point in the Home Office's refusal to grant asylum is the
confusion over the dates given by Mr Malhotra for his entry into the
United Kingdom.This is the first point to be taken up by Mr Malhotra's
representative.
9
ADJ: Miss Stevens.
REP: Sir, may I refer you to page four of the first interview, question three.
(ToAPP) In that interview you stated that you had to leave India in
September 1993, but in the second interview you changed it to
November 1993 because you said you'd confused the dates. Surely, it
must have been November because September does not fit the date
of the demonstration when the police shot your brother...
INT: Sir, could the representative please make her questions a little shorter
and simpler?
ADJ: Yes, Mr Minhas. (To REP) Miss Stevens, try to break down your
questions into single sentences if you will, so that the interpreter can
interpret more readily.
REP: I'm very sorry. (To APP) In your first interview, you said you'd been
forced to leave India in September 1993. Is that correct/
INT: In your first interview, you said you'd been forced to leave India in September
1993. Is that correct?
APP: Pardon, What did you say?
INT: Pardon, what did you say?
REP: In your first interview, did you state that you had left India in September
1993?
INT: /n your first interview, did you state that you had left India in September
1993?
APP: Yes, that is what I said in my first interview.
INT: Yes, that is what I said in my first interview.
REVIEW
COMM: Let's go back to the [representative's] original question.
REP: (To APP) In that interview you stated that you had to leave India in
November 1993 because you said you had confused the dates. Surely, it
must have been November because September does not fit the date of
the demonstration when the police shot your brother...
COMM: There was too much there to translate. But the interpreter couldn't tell
the representative directly. The only course open was to ask the
adjudicator to intervene on his behalf.
INT: Sir, could the representative please make the questions a little shorter
and simpler?
10
COMM: At the adjudicator's request, the representative then asked a shorter
question.
REP: (To APP) In your first interview, you said that you had been forced to
leave India in September 1993. Is that correct?
INT: In your first interview, you said that you had been forced to leave India in
September 1993. Is that correct?
COMM: This was clearly not the question the appellant expected. So he wanted
the question repeated.
APP: Pardon? What did you say?
INT: Pardon? What did you say?
COMM: It would have been quite easy for the interpreter just to repeat the
question in Punjabi for the appellant. But he had to let others in the
court know everything that the appellant was saying. Once again, the
interpreter addressed the adjudicator, not the representative.
B VIDEO STUDY
I b The representative makes her questions too long and complicated.
2c The adjudicator asks the representative to break down her questions into single
sentences.
3a The appellant is surprised and asks for the question to be repeated.
4c The interpreter has to let everyone in the court know what the appellant has said.
And he has to address all interpreted questions and statements to the adjudicator.
5 Words used in court:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
d f a g h b c e
C LEARNING POINTS
1 The interpreter did not have access to the details of dates and events referred to by
the appellant's representative and known to the appellant. Interpreters should be able
to work effectively without such information.
2 The appellant's representative handled it badly. Interpreters should make notes of

details such as dates and proper names.They should also ask for details to be repeated
if necessary, especially if they are likely to be the subject of discussion or argument
between the participants in the proceedings.The representative's presentation here did
not allow the interpreter that opportunity, so the interpreter acted correctly by
requesting clarification through the adjudicator.
II
3 The difference in wording was very small, and in both instances the question required
a direct Yes/No response. The interpreter should translate whatever is said when
questions or statements are repeated. It would be up to the adjudicator to draw
attention to any differences/re-phrasing if he thought it necessary.

1 While administering the oath, the interpreter was acting at the request of the
adjudicator. In this court, the oath-taking is not part of the main proceedings, so there
was no need to interpret until the whole process of oath-taking had been completed.
Once proceedings started, then full interpreting was undertaken.
2 As the interpreter did not have access to all the details referred to by the appellant's
representative he had to make notes of details such as dates and proper names.There
are three main options for dealing with this situation:
• taking notes during the evidence and questioning is essential, as any member of the
court might produce dates, facts and figures - or indeed any kind of information -
which the interpreter needs to recall and possible refer to.
• asking for clarification or repetition may involve slowing down or stopping proceedings
but is necessary and very important when gross misunderstandings might arise, or
they are (likely to be) the subject of discussion or argument between the
participants in the proceedings. But the interpreter's role is to interpret, not to stage
manage events.
• asking for advance information, for example by requesting to see relevant documents
available, can ensure that the interpreter is well prepared for the court's questions
and evidence.
3 The difference in wording used by the representative was very small, and in both
instances her question required the same answer, a direct Yes/No response; it would
seem therefore that the interpreter need not be bothered with the effect of any change.
However, the interpreter has to interpret for the court exactly what is said when
questions or statements are repeated: the speakers might well choose to change the
wording, change the emphasis, or even change the topic. It is not the interpreter's job
to comment on the professional behaviour of the officials in court.
4 You may not have noticed very much at all about the interpreter's clothing, as it his not
his intention to draw particular attention to himself.The interpreter should be suitably
dressed: inappropriate and unprofessional clothing, posture or attitude give the wrong
impression.
12
CULTURE AND CONDUCT
CASE STUDY I PART 2: MrVijay Malhotra

Objectives
• clarifying confusion caused by the appellant.
• dealing with cross-cultural language problems.
• dealing with the unexpected/interruptions.
• remaining objective and resisting stereotypes.
The story so far

The appellant, MrVijay Malhotra, has been giving evidence about the circumstances of his
entry into the UK. His legal representative will now ask about his reasons for applying for
political asylum.
B VIDEO STUDY
There are some interesting cross-cultural points in this part of Mr Malhotra's appeal
hearing.They concern language and behaviour. Read the following before you watch the
video; watch and listen carefully to people's actions and words, and prepare to comment
afterwards.
1 There is a strong suspicion that the appellant may be lying. What is the main point of
the representative's questioning about a political party? Choose the best answer.
a) to identify the political party the appellant belonged to in India.
b) to establish why he joined a particular party.
c) to find out how many of his relatives belonged to that party.
2 How can we tell that the appellant knows some English?
3 Why is there a discussion about the word uncle?
4 What do you see or hear which suggests that the appellant may be trying to appear
superior?
C LEARNING POINTS
I If the appellant had not interrupted the representative, what should the interpreter have
done?
a) Ask the representative to re-phrase her question in order to make clear which
relative was being referred to?
13
b) Translate the question in such a way that the appellant could have referred to the
appropriate relative or could have asked for clarification?
c) Something else?
2 The video commentary states that the interpreter translated exactly what the appellant
said and did not change any words. Consider possibilities a) and b). Do you think either
of these is correct? Why (not)?
a) Would the interpreter have helped the adjudicator if he had used an expression to
strongly emphasise the appellant's apparent attitude of superiority?
b) Should the interpreter have pointed out to the adjudicator this particular aspect
of the appellant's answer, in case the translation did not make it clear?

1 What is the influence of client* behaviour on the interpreter's actions?
2 Are cross-cultural factors a crucial, exaggerated or irrelevant part of the

interpreter/client relationship?
3 If there is a problem translating to or from a client due to cultural factor how far can
the Interpreter use his or her own initiative to overcome the problem?
4 Interpreters must be professional, independent, and ethical in their dealings with all
parties. Consider situations where you or other interpreters have been involved in the
following:
helping the client rephrase statements for the sake of clarity
• helping clients rephrase statements because they are portraying themselves in a
poor light
• offering in the client's native language to explain for the client what he or she is
trying to say in English, so that matters can be speeded up
• briefing the client's family and friends about aspects of the English legal system, such
as probation, bail or attachment of earnings
• being subjected to physical or verbal abuse by clients or their associates
• refusing to interpret for a client because of their criminal or other unethical
behaviour.
• joining a celebration held by the client at the end of a case where you have
interpreted
When, if ever, would any of the above be appropriate?
*"The term 'client' defines any person whose words the interpreter is translating. It does not imply any contractual relationship
between this person and the interpreter
14
5 Many native English speakers are ignorant of the culture of the clients that interpreters
represent.This can have many consequences in terms of language use, and also in terms
of gestures.
Consider the following situations which may have involved you or other interpreters :
• the status of relatives or family friends, employees or religious leaders needs
clarification for the English-speaking listeners
• an English word is capable of so many meanings in the client's language that an
explanation of the differences in the client's language is called for
• an English word is so precise in meaning that an equivalent is impossible without
detailed explanation
• food or other domestic issues are meaningless without an additional gloss for the
English speaking listeners
the English references are so specific to the UK that the client cannot understand
without elaborate explanation
• the English used is so offensive in the client's language that no interpretation is
made or a different version is substituted
• the language used by the client is so offensive in English that no interpretation is
made or a different version is substituted
Discuss the specific circumstances which made these things necessary in your experience.
CASE STUDY I PART 2: KEY
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
COMM: Another important point in this appeal was the reason why the
appellant had been a member of a particular political party.
REP: Why did you become a member of that party?
INT: Why did you become a member of that party?
REP: My relatives have been members of that party.
INT: My relatives have been members of that party.
REP: In your interview, you mentioned your uncle.Was he a member?
APP: No, No. (continues in Punjabi) No, / never said that. You have the wrong
word.
INT: No, I never said that.You have the wrong word. Sir, there is more than
one word to describe 'uncle' in Punjabi, perhaps the appellant's
representative needs to ask which particular relative is being referred
to.
REP: Which relative do you mean then?
INT: My mother's elder brother, of course.
15
REVIEW
COMM: The representative asked about Mr Malhotra's reference to his uncle in
his interview.
REP: In your interview, you mentioned your uncle. Was he a member?
APR: No, No. (continues in Punjabi) No, I never said that. You have the wrong
word.
INT: No, I never said that.You have the wrong word.
COMM: The appellant interrupted because he knew some English and he

spotted the world 'uncle'.There was a problem of language here
because there are several Punjabi words which correspond to the
various relationships covered by the English word 'uncle'. And the
right word had to be found.
INT: Sir, there is more than one word to describe'uncle' in Punjabi. Perhaps
the appellant's representative needs to ask which particular relative is
being referred to.
INT: Which relative do you mean then?
APP: My mother's elder brother, of course.
COMM: There was another point here.The appellant seemed to be displaying

an air of superiority. But the interpreter didn't draw attention to the
attitude of the appellant, or try to sound more objective. He translated
exactly what was said, and didn't attempt to change any words at all.
B VIDEO STUDY
1 The correct answer is b).The appellant's representative wants him to explain why he
joined a particular political party. At this stage of the appeal, the appellant does not
sound very convincing, and this is an opportunity for him to show his political beliefs
and allegiances; however, the court will no doubt notice that his replies are evasive.
2 The appellant interrupts the interpreter by saying No, and he shows that he understands
the English word uncle.
3 In this instance, the discussion about the word uncle is prompted by the appellant, who
is trying to, confuse things as his answers to the questions are rather weak.
4 The appellant gixes, an impression of superiority through his body language, his facial
expression.Jiis readiness to interrupt, and because he uses (the equivalent of) the
phrase 'of course' in his response. However, these may be signs opf defensiveness on the
appellant's part.
16
C LEARNING POINTS
1 The only correct solution is a).The interpreter would have spotted the language
problem and could therefore have prevented misunderstanding by helping the
representative to ask a suitable question, as he eventually did in the video extract.
Notice that the interpreter explained the language problem to the adjudicator, not
directly to the representative.
b) suggests moving away from a literal translation without informing others involved in
the proceedings.This could lead to further difficulties and misunderstandings and would
in any case be wrong in terms of court procedure.
2 The interpreter was correct to give the most literal translation possible, and in
particular not to add anything to what the appellant had said or to comment on the
appellant's language or behaviour.The solution in a) would therefore not be appropriate.
With regard to b), it is up to the adjudicator to decide how far the appellant is trying
to appear superior. The interpreter's job is simply to translate the expression in the
most neutral way possible.This is particularly important in situations where the choice
of expression used may itself convey a particular attitude on the part of the speaker.

1 Cross-cultural factors have a considerable potential influence on client/interpreter
relationships, especially in the areas of attitude (friend or enemy) physical and affective
behaviours (touching, smiling) and behaviour in the situation (style of communication).
The important thing is to observe PIE.
P Maintain a PROFESSIONAL approach throughout.
I Maintain INDEPENDENCE.
E Show EMPATHY to the client but without siding with him/her.
2 The interpreter has a duty to intervene but also a duty not to run the conversation.
This involves selecting the key points that may cause cultural misunderstanding,
explaining the possible misunderstanding simply and briefly and paraphrasing what is
said to achieve greater clarity (within the recognised procedures of the environment).
3 The interpreter may paraphrase or enter into brief discussion in three areas:
• to ask for repetition,
to seek clarification.
• to check comprehension.
17
INTERACTING WITH THE CLIENT
CASE STUDY 2 PART I: Mrs RoseToure

Objectives
You will learn how to
• control a witness by means of simple gestures.
• help a witness give evidence satisfactorily/clearly.
• deal with witnesses under stress.
• help adjudicators, judges, etc to write down interpreted evidence.
Participants
Adjudicator: Professor David Casson
Interpreter: Mrs Christiana Teytaud
Home Office Presenting Officer: Mr Julian Cooper
Appellant; Mrs RoseToure
The story so far

Mrs RoseToure arrived in the UK from the Cote d'lvoire via Paris with a forged passport
in a name which did not correspond to the name on her national identity card. She
claimed political asylum on arrival at Heathrow airport. Her application was refused and
she was served with a notice of refusal of leave to enter the UK. She claimed to have been
involved in political activity, which included providing information to a banned opposition
party while she was employed in government service. She said that she was certain to
suffer persecution if she returned to her country.
MrsToure's story was that her undercover work for the opposition had become known
and that she had been forced to go into hiding. Soon after, her husband disappeared and
she was told that he had been taken away by members of the President's security forces.
She had been introduced to an agent, Mr Kone, whom she paid to get her out of the
country.
At Abidjan airport, her agent bribed the immigration officials so that she could board
the aircraft to Paris.The agent gave her instructions for going through transit formalities
in Paris. When she landed in London, she left the forged passport on the aircraft (it was
found during a search). She did not speak or understand English, and she claimed that she
knew no one in the UK.
MrsToure was medically examined after her arrival and was found to be four months
pregnant. She was also diagnosed as HIV positive.
MrsToure speaks French and Bambara.
18
B VIDEO STUDY
Some difficulties arise in this part of MrsToure's appeal hearing. Read the following before
you watch the video; notice how people cope with emotion and confusion, and prepare
to comment afterwards.
1 The interpreter gets into difficulties during this hearing. What aspects of her
professional performance, her behaviour or her manner could be open to criticism?
2 In what ways does the behaviour of the appellant, MrsToure, change during this part of
the hearing? What mood(s) does her behaviour suggest?
3 The adjudicator is unable to write down the evidence given through the interpreter.
How does he show this?
C LEARNING POINTS
1 If you had been the interpreter, which of the following would you have found most
difficult? Put (a-d) in order of difficulty and give reasons for the order you choose:
a) getting the appellant to present her evidence clearly.
b) translating evidence that was poorly presented by the appellant.
c) speaking slowly enough for the adjudicator to write down the evidence.
d) keeping calm in awkward circumstances.
2 The interpreter was having no success in using gestures to get the appellant to speak
louder and more slowly. How should an interpreter communicate with the client in this
situation?
a) ask the appellant (in French) to speak more clearly?
b) touch the appellant to get her attention?
c) pass a written message to the appellant?
d) remain silent until the appellant stops talking and then explain the situation to the
court and ask permission to explain to the client.
3 What advice would you give to the interpreter in this appeal to ensure that the
adjudicator could take down interpreted evidence without difficulty?

1 In what situations should the interpreter take notes? What are the key things the
interpreter needs to note?
2 What is the best way to take notes (e.g. shorthand, longhand, bullet points, spider
diagrams etc)?
3 To what extent should the interpreter act as

• an agent (negotiating a transaction and giving information)
an observer (translating what is said)
in different interpreting situations?
19
CASE STUDY 2 PART I: KEY
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
COMM: Our second appellant is Rose Toure. Mrs Toure comes from the Cote
d'lvoire and her application for political asylum is based on her work
with an opposition group. On arrival in the United Kingdom she was
found to be pregnant and was diagnosed as HIV positive.
HOPO: (To APP)...And when travelling to the airport did you have to show your
national identity card to the authorities...?
COMM: Mrs Toure was carrying her national identity card when she arrived at
Heathrow airport, but she had no passport or ticket. Later, a ticket and
a forged passport in her name were found on the aircraft.
During his cross-examination, the Home Office Presenting Officer asked
Mrs Toure how she came to leave the passport and the ticket on the
aircraft. He also questioned her about the circumstances in which she
obtained the documents from an agent - called Mr Kone - and then
boarded the flight at Abidjan.
REP: Mrs Toure, I would like you to say what happened when you were with your
agent, Mr Kone, at Abidjan airport?
APP: Mr Kone took me to o counter and the officer stomped my passport and then
he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over my passport and my
ticket, and then he went away and left me there.
INT: Mrs Toure, I would like you to say what happened when you were with
your agent, Mr Kone, at Abidjan airport?
INT: I'm afraid I shall have to ask the appellant to speak louder and more
slowly.
ADJ: Yes, please do so, MrsTeytaud.
INT: Mrs Toure, please can you repeat what you said, speaking louder and more
slowly.
APP: First, Mr Kone took me to a counter and there the officer stamped my
passport and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over the
passport and the ticket.
INT: First, Mr Kone took me to a counter and there the officer stamped my
passport and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over
the passport and the ticket.
ADJ; MrsTeytaud) please go a little more slowly. Remember that I am writing

this evidence down please.
INT: Sorry sir. First Mr Kone took me to the counter...
20
COMM: Things are not going well, even though MrsToure's evidence is basically
quite simple.
REVIEW
COMM: MrsToure's evidence.
First Mr Kone took her to a counter where the passport was
stamped.
Then Mr Kone took her to the plane and handed over the passport
and the ticket.
Then Mr Kone left her and went away.
COMM: This was a very distressing experience for MrsToure, and she had
difficulty telling the court about what had happened.
APR: Mr Kone took me to a counter and the officer there stamped my passport
and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over my passport
and ticket, and then he went away and left me there.
COMM: It was difficult to hear exactly what the appellant was saying.The
interpreter used gestures to get her to speak louder and more slowly
but without success.
slowly, sir.
COMM: Next time MrsToure managed to speak distinctly, but she was
becoming more and more distressed as she repeated her story.
APR: First, Mr Kone took me to the counter and there the officer stamped my
passport...
COMM: This was the second time the interpreter had heard the story, so not
surprisingly she went quite fast in English when she gave a translation.
INT: First, Mr Kone and there the officer stamped my passport and then he,
Mr Kone, took me to the plane...
COMM: This was too fast for the adjudicator to write down the evidence.
ADJ: MrsTeytaud, please go a little more slowly. Remember that I am

writing this evidence down please.
INT: Sorry, sir...
B VIDEO STUDY
I The key issue here is that the interpreter seems to be nervous and so is not in
command of the situation. Particular points of professional criticism include the
following:
• Her attempts to get the appellant to speak more clearly are not sufficiently
positive.
21
• She speaks too quickly for the adjudicator, who has to write down what she says.
• She seems nervous and taps the desk distractingly with her finger.
2 The appellant becomes increasingly distressed as she gives her evidence.

• She begins to lose patience with the interpreter.
• She gives way to emotion.
• She gesticulates wildly and looks all around the court.
3 The adjudicator attracts the interpreter's attention and interrupts what she is saying,
asking her to slow down and, in effect, take more care and control of the situation.
C LEARNING POINTS
1 Your answer will depend to some extent on your own professional experience, but you
should be able to give reasons why you find some points more difficult than others.
Some of the problems in this case - see (d) for example - arise directly from the
interpreter's earlier difficulties, others originate more from the client's behaviour.
2 a) is an inappropriate response.The interpreter must advise the court of what he/she

intends to do before talking to the client in French.
b) is also inappropriate, the interpreter should avoid physical contact with the client.
c) This is inappropriate. Written messages would be wrong
d) This is appropriate.The interpreter should explain to the court the difficulty he/she
is having, make a recommendation to the court, and once approval has been given,
relay the recommendation to the client.
The general rule is that the court must always be informed beforehand of what
action the interpreter is going to undertake in the client's language.
3 Here are some suggestions:

Speak clearly and slowly.
Break up the evidence into short sentences.
Watch the pen. Check that the adjudicator has finished writing a sentence or a piece of
evidence before moving on to the next one.

1 Where sentences are long, broken up or hesitant, an interpreter should take notes.
The key things to note are proper names and place names, times and dates, and
quantities and amounts.
2 Avoid taking notes in shorthand. Shorthand is a word for word and language-specific
activity but interpreting is not. Accuracy and faithfulness to the source speech may
require a complete recasting of the sentence in the target language.The requirement is
faithfulness to the meaning and idiom of the client. Nevertheless, in the case of offensive
language being used or obvious potential cross-cultural misunderstanding, some
paraphrasing may be necessary.
22
The interpreting function may vary in different environments. The basic interpreting
function is to interpret. This requires objectivity, professionalism and certain distance
from the discourse. In a court situation this objectivity is fundamental to the
professional role of the public service interpreter.
In other circumstance the interpreter may be acting as an agent for one of the parties
or as a representative for a group. In this environment the interpreter may interpret in
such a way as to put the client's case in the most favourable light.This is not appropriate
in a legal environment.
23
DEALING WITH PROBLEMS
CASE STUDY 2 PART 2: Mrs RoseToure

Objectives
You will Iparn about
dealing with interruptions and distractions
• handling emotional witnesses
• the importance of note taking
• taking instructions from the court
The story so far

The appellant, Mrs RoseToure, has been giving evidence about what happened to her at
Abidjan airport. This is turning out to be a distressing experience for her and a difficult
task for the interpreter.
B VIDEO STUDY
More difficulties arise in this part of MrsToure's appeal hearing. Read the following before
you watch the video; watch how people react to the circumstances, and prepare to
comment afterwards.
1 There are numerous interruptions and other distractions in this part of the hearing.
What is their effect on
a) the interpreter?
b) the appellant?
2 What does the adjudicator do to stop the interpreter speaking? Is he successful? Why?
3 What information does the adjudicator want clarified?
4 At one stage the interpreter stops translating what said by the appellant; why is this?
C LEARNING POINTS
1 The adjudicator was unable to identify who had taken the appellant's passport and ticket
when she boarded the plane? Why was this?
2 The appellant became very distressed. How might the interpreter have prevented the
problems which occurred when the appellant was giving evidence?
24
3 The appellant was obviously distressed and not always able to give her evidence
effectively, or even to use the language of the court proceedings. How sympathetic
should an interpreter be in such circumstances?

1 When, if ever, is it appropriate to show emotional involvement with the client either by
hugging, touching or smiling?
2 To what extent is it right to be in contact with the client, friends of the client or
member's of the client's family?
3 In what circumstances is professional preparation possible, valued or recommended?
CASE STUDY 2 PART 2: KEY
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
COMM: Now back to the appeal hearing.
INT: First, Mr Kone took me to a counter. Then the officer stamped the
passport, and then Mr Kone took me to the plane... I'm sorry I'll have to
ask the appellant to repeat the next bit.
ADJ: Please do that.
INT: Could you repeated what happened when you boarded the plane?
APP: The passport and ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
INT: The passport and the ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
ADJ: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket? Or were they
taken by someone else on the plane?
INT: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket? Or were they taken
by someone else on the plane?
APP: You already know. He gave it to the attendant on the plane and left me there.
(Continues in local dialect.)
INT: I'm afraid the appellant has broken into dialect. I'll ask her to say that in
French.
ADJ: Please do so, Mrs Teytaud.
INT: Could you say that in French?

APP: You already know. He gave it to the officer, to the attendant on the plane and
then he left me there.
INT: You already know. He gave it to the officer, to the attendant on the plane
and then he left me there.
COMM: The appellant is calmer now.And that part of her evidence is complete.
25
REVIEW
COMM: It hasn't been easy for the interpreter. Let's go back a bit.
passport, and then Mr Kone took me to the plane...
COMM: After so many interruptions, she'd begun to forget the appellant's exact
words.
INT: I'm sorry. I'll have to ask the appellant to repeat the next bit.
ADJ: Yes. Please do that.
COMM: This meant a request to the appellant to repeat what she'd already said
twice.
APP: The passport and the ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
COMM: The appellant couldn't be expected to use exactly the same words every
time. And now the adjudicator had to ask for clarification.
ADJ: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket or were they
INT: Do you mean that it was you who took the passport and the ticket from Mr
Kone, or that someone else on the plane took them?
COMM: Unfortunately, the appellant was now so distressed that she used a local
dialect not recognised by the court.
ADJ: You already know! He gave it to the attendant and then he left... (in local
dialect again) He left me there. (Continues in local dialect.)
COMM: She had to be asked to speak French, the language in use for the appeal
hearing.
INT: (To ADJ) I'll ask her to say that in French.
ADJ: Please do so MrsTeytaud.
COMM: The interpreter's manner helped to calm the appellant without giving
any sense of taking her side in the appeal. And in this way the interpreter
helped to bring this difficult part of the hearing to a successful
conclusion.
B VIDEO STUDY
I The interpreter forgets the appellant's exact words, while the appellant becomes
increasingly distressed.
26
2 He holds his hand up. The interpreter is not carrying out her duties very
successfully, but at least she is looking at the adjudicator, to whom she addresses
all her English language statements. She therefore acknowledges his signal to stop.
3 The adjudicator needs to know precisely who was in possession of the

appellant's passport and ticket, but the appellant's evidence did not make this
clear. Neither the appellant - because of her distress - nor the interpreter
explained adequately that the ticket and passport were taken by the attendant
on the plane.
4 The appellant starts to use a language not recognised by the court in this case.
The court officials might not have noticed the switch by the appellant to
Bambara, but of course the interpreter working in French realises that what is
being said is not French.
C LEARNING POINTS
1 The adjudicator was unable to identify the person involved owing to the form of
words in which the evidence had been given: The passport and the ticket were
taken from Mr Kone'. Misunderstanding and confusion of this kind can easily
arise from statements which are in the passive (like the one above) or are
impersonal (e.g. 'It was stated that...') or which use 'he/she/they' instead of
identifying the person/people the evidence is referring to. The interpreter can
often prevent such confusion by asking for evidence to be re-phrased. Similar
confusion can be caused if the interpreter changes a direct witness statement
(beginning'I...') into indirect speech ('He/She...').
2 The appellant had been asked to tell her story:'What happened when... ?' She
was clearly trying to do this in one uninterrupted piece of evidence, which the
interpreter would have found difficult to deal with. The interpreter could have
anticipated this and could have helped the appellant to break down her evidence
into very short statements, for example by gesturing her to stop at the end of
each sentence.
3 The interpreter must be impartial, and should avoid taking sides or even
appearing to do so. After all, the apparent distress of a witness may not be
genuine. Sympathetic treatment of witnesses and putting them at their ease
should be directed towards getting evidence interpreted effectively, not towards
making witnesses feel happier.

I It is important not to appear indifferent to the client as a person but it is also
important to be seen to be both independent and neutral, acting as a medium of
communication between the two sides. Interpreters may feel uncomfortable in
situations where their independence and neutrality is questioned either by the
client or by the authorities. Where the interpreter has a professional affiliation
(such as being an official of a court) it is important to declare it.
27
2 It is normally quite inappropriate. A professional interpreter's role is not to interpret
the wishes of the client but to interpret what is said. It may be that a pre-interpretation
briefing is necessary for professional reasons. In other circumstances the client's
interests may be represented by a spokesperson acting as an agent, but this is different
from the role of the interpreter.
3 Professional preparation is clearly advisable wherever possible. In court interpreting it

is important to get hold of appropriate court records. In conference interpreting it is
important to get hold of an advance text and maybe to meet the client briefly before
the interpreting session. In cases of interpreting for senior international corporate
personnel it may be helpful to contact the corporate press office for advance
Information or to get information about the company on the Internet. All these
preparatory steps aid confidence and fluency during the interpreting session. However,
in many public service interpreting situations, such preparation is not possible.
SUMMARY OF LEARNING POINTS

Helping the adjudicator
Address all interpreted evidence to the adjudicator. (All chapters)
Give the adjudicator reasons for asking evidence to be repeated or made clear.
(Chapters 2 and 5)
Make sure that you give the adjudicator time to write down the evidence.
(Chapter 4)
Language
Watch out for problems with language, especially with words which cannot be
translated literally. (Chapter 3)
Interpret everything that is said, without omitting or adding anything of your own.
(Chapter 3)
Watch out for possible misunderstanding of what is said by clients or by

representatives. (Chapters 3 and 6)
Behaviour
Use simple gestures to help witnesses give evidence slowly and clearly. (Chapter 4)
Remember that witnesses may be under stress. This will affect the way they give
evidence. (Chapters 4 and 5)
Be impartial and formal in your dealings with witnesses. (Chapters 2 and 5)
28
THE ADJUDICATOR'S VIEW
Objectives
• interpreting seen through the eyes of an adjudicator.
• facilitating the adjudicator's understanding
• the role of interpreters
Participants
The adjudicator: Professor David Casson
B VIDEO STUDY
Professor Casson covers a number of points about interpreting. As you watch the video,
write notes to answer these questions.
1 What are the key qualities of a good court interpreter?
2 What kind of difficulties does a court interpreter face?
3 When should an interpreter ask for help?
4 What common mistakes does an interpreter make?
5 What should an interpreter do if he or she is 'watching the pen1?
6 How might an interpreter betray partiality?
7 How might body language show partiality?
8 How should an interpreter deal with problems with the adjudicator?
9 Summarise the key qualities of an interpreter.
C LEARNING POINTS
Look at the answers to the questions in B again. Compare them to your own experience,
under these headings, and give examples, where relevant.
1 Qualities
2 Difficulties
29
3 Asking for help
4 Common mistakes
5 Watching the pen
6 Impartiality
7 Body language
8 Problems with the adjudicator
9 Key qualities

1 You have seen how Professor Casson treats the interpreter as an official of the court.
What are the key features of the interpreter's role in an official environment?
2 What do you feel is the appropriate client attitude towards interpreters? To what
extent does that exist in your service? If it is unsatisfactory what can you do to change
it?
3 What is the attitude of Professor Casson towards interpreters. Is it shared by senior

people in your service? What can be done to improve attitudes?
THE ADJUDICATOR'S VIEW: KEY
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
COMM: What is the adjudicator's view?
QUALITIES
COMM: First, what qualities does the adjudicator look for in an interpreter?
ADJ: Well, I think the most important thing to remember is that the
interpreter is a professional. He's performing an extremely important
function in the process of the administration of justice that we are
concerned with in our jurisdiction. We rely upon interpreters in
immigration appeals to a very great extent. The majority of our
appellants do not have English as their first or native language and in
order for them to be able to put their case to us fairly, the use of the
interpreter is necessary - essential - and so we regard the interpreter
as one of our most important officers. And I'm very happy to say that
mostly they perform their responsibilities with skill and with distinction.
30
DIFFICULTIES
COMM: Next, what about the difficulties that an interpreter faces?
ADJ: I believe that the interpreter has an extremely arduous job: he may be
confronted and often is confronted with an appellant whose command
of his own language is not literary at all and who is not accustomed
perhaps to speaking in sentences and in phrases that are meant to be
repeated, let alone translated; yet the interpreter has got to be able to
convey to the adjudicator what the appellant is saying without distorting
it, without changing the meaning, without improving the quality of what
is being said, but at the same time trying to make sense of what is said.
Sometimes that can be an exceptionally difficult task.And all adjudicators
who have some knowledge of another language and who realise in the
individual case how difficult the appellant is being, the other witness is
being, in terms of clarity, repetitiveness and so on, those of us who have
that certain degree of knowledge fully understand the difficulties the
interpreter is facing, but that is the skill which the interpreter is bringing
to bear in the discharge of his responsibilities.
AN EXAMPLE
COMM: Can you give a typical example?
ADJ: I suppose one of the most frequent would be the inexperienced

advocate [legal representative] who fails to appreciate that what he is
asking the appellant is going to have to be translated and translated
speedily and who therefore asks far too long a question.That poses the
interpreter with a very great difficulty, because he doesn't want to
interrupt if he can possibly avoid it, and yet there may be circumstances
in which his only chance of being able to discharge his job properly is to
stop the advocate in the middle of the question. When that arises he
must make it clear to the adjudicator that it's necessary for the question
to be broken down.
ASKING FOR HELP

COMM: When should an interpreter ask for help?
ADJ: The interpreter must always look to the adjudicator for help whenever
he or she feels she needs it.That is to say if there's any difficulty which
impedes the interpreter in discharging the job that he or she is there to
do, then she must at once make that plain to the adjudicator, and the
adjudicator's responsibility is to ensure that the interpreter is able to do
the task that he is there to do.
COMMON MISTAKES
COMM: What kind of mistakes do interpreters make?
31
ADJ: I suppose the first illustration would be the interpreter who translates
a sentence or an answer by saying 'he says that he did this'. Now the
most important responsibility of the interpreter is to convey to the
adjudicator the words used by the appellant, by the witness - not in
reported speech but in direct speech, as though the interpreter were
himself giving the answer, making allowances for the fact that it is a
translation, but it must not be given in reported speech. It must be the
witness speaking through the interpreter.
WATCHING THE PEN

COMM: Why is 'watching the pen' important?
ADJ: It sounds rather trite, but it really does hide a most important task for
the interpreter to remember, and that is that the evidence that the
witness is giving through the interpreter is going to be written down by
the adjudicator, probably, most of the time and the danger is that the
interpreter will speak so fast that the adjudicator is not able to do his
job of recording the evidence that is given in writing. By watching the
adjudicator's pen the interpreter can ensure that he is not going ahead
of things.
IMPARTIALITY
COMM: Do you ever find interpreters being partial or biased?
ADJ: Fortunately, it is very rare for an adjudicator to feel that an interpreter

is not being impartial. On the infrequent occasions where that may be
the case, it is usually the witness' representative - the appellant's
representative - who will indicate that there is a problem. If that doesn't
happen, certainly the adjudicator has a very clear responsibility, a judicial
responsibility, to ensure that the court official - and that is what the
interpreter is - is discharging his or her responsibilities with absolute
truthfulness and impartiality. One must be on the look out as an
adjudicator for indications that there may be a want of impartiality, for
example signs of impatience or disagreement expressed by the
interpreter, or interruptions of the answers being given in the original
language, indications like that must be something that an adjudicator
should be aware of and alert to and it may be the adjudicator's
responsibility to decide that this interpreter ought not to continue in
this particular case. But as I say, that is happily a very rare event.
BODY LANGUAGE
COMM: Can an interpreter's body language affect the outcome of an appeal?
ADJ: I find that a difficult question to answer, it is difficult for me to say what
kind of body language is acceptable between the interpreter and the
witness. It's generally desirable, I would say, for the interpreter not to
32
have any form of physical contact with the witness whose words he or
she is interpreting. Sometimes the temptation to do that is quite strong,
but in general it would be desirable to avoid it.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ADJUDICATOR

COMM: What should interpreters do if they have a problem with the
adjudicator?
ADJ: It's perfectly proper for an interpreter to indicate to the adjudicator that
some difficulty has arisen. Whether as a result of what the adjudicator
has said or done, or indeed for any other reason, anything that impedes
the interpreter in the discharge of his responsibilities is something which
the interpreter should draw to the attention of the adjudicator.
Adjudicators sometimes speak too fast, they sometimes don't allow
enough time for words to be interpreted and so on, if that happens the
interpreter should indicate the problem to the adjudicator. If an
interpreter feels a particular adjudicator is being unhelpful to an
unacceptable extent then that is something which the individual
interpreter should always take up with the Interpreter Manager after the
hearing.
AND FINALLY...
COMM: And finally...
ADJ: My key qualities for an interpreter are professional skills, linguistic

competence, a good clear speaking voice, patience and a reasonable
degree of lack of fatigue.
B VIDEO STUDY
1 The quality the adjudicator looks for is professionalism. He regards the interpreter as a
court official.
2 The interpreter's difficulties are that he/she has to translate clearly and without
distortion sentences that are often not clear easily translatable.
3 The interpreter should ask the adjudicator for help when anything occurs to impede
the interpreter in the discharge of his or her professional duty.
4 The most common mistake by interpreters is reporting what a person says instead of
translating the actual words.
5 'Watching the pen' describes the interpreter's duty not to translate too fast for the
adjudicator to follow or to write down the evidence.
6 Absolute truthfulness and impartiality is the professional duty of the interpreter.

Showing impatience or interrupting or entering into discussion with the person
interpreted may be a sign of partiality.
33
7 It is often difficult to decide what is acceptable body language, but avoid physical contact.
In addition, beware of emphatic gestures ( e.g. of sympathy or encouragement) and facial
expressions ( e.g of disapproval).These can suggest bias on the part of the interpreter.
8 Anything that impedes performance of professional duties such as speaking too fast
should be brought to the attention of the adjudicator. If the interpreter feels the
adjudicator is unhelpful it should be raised after the session.
9 Professor Casson summarises the key qualities as follows:

lack of fatigue
professional skills
linguistic competence
a good clear speaking voice
patience
C LEARNING POINTS
I Your answers here will depend on your own professional experience.
1 Neutrality Interpreters are professionals who act as neutral facilitators between

speakers of a foreign language and culture and the host culture officers who they
represent.
Intervention Their aim is to intervene not interfere in proceedings in order to help clarify
the true meaning of what is said.
Bridging communications gaps (linguistic and cultural) They are objective professionals
bridging a communications gap ( linguistic or cultural).
No interference It is not their job to interfere in official procedures.
/mf)ort/o//'tyThey should not confuse the role of interpreter with that of agent, advocate
or representative.
DTHE INTERPRETER'S ROLE

1 The key features of an interpreter's role in an official environment are neutrality and
professionalism. The public service interpreter's loyalty must be to the service he/she
represents and this must not be compromised. At all costs the interpreter must avoid
giving the impression of partisanship by tone of voice, expression or body language.This
stance may need to be explained to the client before the session.
2 Faced with the interpreter's neutrality, the client may feel that the interpreter is
betraying the client's culture or compromising his/her community. In the light of a
common language and a common culture, the client may expect the interpreter to
defend his/her interests. Hence an attitude of distrust may appear and lead to a hostile
reaction on the part of the client.
Where this hostility appears, it is important to explain to the client that the job of the
interpreter is to be completely impartial and that it is in the best interests of all parties.
34
3 Professor Casson's attitude towards interpreters is very positive. However, many public
service officials accord interpreters low professional and social status because they feel
the interpreter will automatically identify with the client nationally and culturally and
that therefore they cannot be trusted as impartial.
• In general there is a need for management training for public service official in the
effective deployment and professional status of interpreters.
• In addition it is important to maintain professional standards at all time and to
explain to clients and officials the professional attitudes and procedures that
control interpreter behaviour in court.
35
COMPLETE WDEO SCRIPT
CASE STUDY I PART I

COMM: Two appellants...
... and two court interpreters:
Mr Akram Minhas and
Mrs ChristianeTeytaud
Mr Minhas has been assigned to interpret in the appeal of MrVijay
Malhotra...
COMM: Vijay Malhotra comes from India. He applied for political asylum on the
grounds that he would face persecution if he returned home.
His application was rejected and he is appealing against the Secretary of
State's refusal to grant asylum.
CLERK: All rise.
ADJ: Please sit down.

(To REP) Miss Stevens, are we ready to proceed with this appeal?
REP: Yes sir.
ADJ: Good. (To HOPO) Mr Cooper?
HOPO: Yes sir.
ADJ: Good, very well. (To /NT) Mr Minhas, good morning.
INT: Morning, sir.
ADJ: Have you been able to speak to this appellant yet?
INT: I haven't sir, but I will with your permission.
ADJ: Please do so.
INT: Thank you sir. (Speaks to APP in Punjabi, the to ADJ).

Sir, we can understand each other perfectly and the language is Punjabi.
ADJ: Very good. Have you ascertained the appellant's religion?
INT: No sir, but again I will do with your permission, sir.

(Speaks to APP in Punjabi, then to ADJ.)
Sir, hc'a a Hindu.
ADJ: Very good. Will you please swear the appellant, Mr Minhas?
INT: Yes sir. (Speaks to APP in Punjabi.)

36
COMM: An important point in the Home Office's refusal to grant asylum is the
confusion over the dates given by Mr Malhotra for his entry into the
United Kingdom.This is the first point to be taken up by Mr Malhotra's
representative.
ADJ: Miss Stevens.
REP: Sir, may I refer you to page four of the first interview, question three. (To
APP) In that interview you stated that you had to leave India in
November 1993 because you said you'd confused the dates. Surely, it
INT: Sir, could the representative please make her questions a little shorter
and simpler?
ADJ: Yes, Mr Minhas. (To REP) Miss Stevens, try to break down your questions
into single sentences if you will, so that the interpreter can interpret
more readily.
REP: I'm very sorry. (To APP) In your first interview, you said you'd been forced
to leave India in September 1993. Is that correct/
INT: In your first interview, you said you'd been forced to leave India in September
1993. Is that correct?
APP: Pardon, What did you say?
INT: Pardon, what did you say?
REP: In your first interview, did you state that you had left India in September
1993?
INT: In your first interview, did you state that you had left India in September
1993?
APP: Yes, that is what I said in my first interview.
INT: Yes, that is what I said in my first interview.
REVIEW
COMM: Let's go back to the [representative's] original question.
REP: (To APP) In that interview you stated that you had to leave India in
September 1993, but In the second interview you changed it to
November 1993 because you said you had confused the dates. Surely, it
37
COMM: There was too much there to translate. But the interpreter couldn't tell
the representative directly. The only course open was to ask the
adjudicator to intervene on his behalf.
INT: Sir, could the representative please make the questions a little shorter
and simpler?
COMM: At the adjudicator's request, the representative then asked a shorter

question.
REP: (To APP) In your first interview, you said that you had been forced to
leave India in September 1993. Is that correct?
INT: In your first interview, you said that you had been forced to leave India in
September 1993. Is that correct?
COMM: This was clearly not the question the appellant expected. So he wanted
the question repeated.
APP: Pardon? What did you say?
INT: Pardon? What did you say?
COMM: It would have been quite easy for the interpreter just to repeat the
question in Punjabi for the appellant. But he had to let others in the
court know everything that the appellant was saying. Once again, the
interpreter addressed the adjudicator, not the representative.
CASE STUDY I PART 2

COMM: Another important point in this appeal was the reason why the appellant
had been a member of a particular political party.
REP: Why did you become a member of that party?
INT: Why did you become a member of that party?
REP: My relatives have been members of that party.
INT: My relatives have been members of that party.
APP: No, No. (continues in Punjabi) No, I never said thatYou have the wrong word.
INT: No, I never said that.You have the wrong word. Sir, there is more than
one word to describe 'uncle' in Punjabi, perhaps the appellant's
representative needs to ask which particular relative is being referred to.
REP; Which relative do you mean then?
38
REVIEW
COMM: The representative asked about Mr Malhotra's reference to his uncle in
his interview.
APR: No, No. (continues in Punjabi) No, I never said thatYou have the wrong
word.
INT: No, I never said that.You have the wrong word.
COMM: The appellant interrupted because he knew some English and he

spotted the world 'uncle'.There was a problem of language here
because there are several Punjabi words which correspond to the
various relationships covered by the English word 'uncle'. And the right
word had to be found.
INT: Sir, there is more than one word to describe'uncle' in Punjabi. Perhaps
the appellant's representative needs to ask which particular relative is
being referred to.

INT: Which relative do you mean then?
APP: My mother's elder brother, of course.

COMM: There was another point here.The appellant seemed to be displaying
an air of superiority. But the interpreter didn't draw attention to the
attitude of the appellant, or try to sound more objective. He translated
exactly what was said, and didn't attempt to change any words at all.
CASE STUDY 2 PART I

COMM: Our second appellant is Rose Toure. Mrs Toure comes from the Cote
d'lvoire and her application for political asylum is based on her work
with an opposition group. On arrival in the United Kingdom she was
found to be pregnant and was diagnosed as HIV positive.
HOR: (To APP)..And when travelling to the airport did you have to show your
national identity card to the authorities...?
COMM: Mrs Toure was carrying her national identity card when she arrived at
Heathrow airport, but she had no passport or ticket. Later, a ticket and
a forged passport in her name were found on the aircraft.
During his cross-examination, the Home Office Presenting Officer asked
Mrs Toure how she came to leave the passport and the ticket on the
aircraft. He also questioned her about the circumstances in which she
39
obtained the documents from an agent - called Mr Kone - and then
boarded the flight at Abidjan.
REP: Mrs Toure, I would like you to say what happened when you were with your
agent, Mr Kone, at Abidjan airport?
APR: Mr Kone took me to a counter and the officer stamped my passport and then
he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over my passport and my
ticket, and then he went away and left me there.
INT: Mrs Toure, I would like you to say what happened when you were with
your agent, Mr Kone, at Abidjan airport?
slowly.
ADJ: Yes, please do so, Mrs Teytaud.
INT: Mrs Toure, please can you repeat what you said, speaking louder and more
slowly.
APR: First, Mr Kone took me to a counter and there the officer stamped my
passport and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over the
passport and the ticket.
INT: First, Mr Kone took me to a counter and there the officer stamped my
passport and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over
the passport and the ticket.
ADJ: Mrs Teytaud, please go a little more slowly. Remember that I am writing
INT: Sorry sir. First Mr Kone took me to the counter...
COMM: Things are not going well, even though MrsToure's evidence is basically
quite simple.
REVIEW
COMM: MrsToure's evidence.
First Mr Kone took her to a counter where the passport was stamped.
Then Mr Kone took her to the plane and handed over the passport
and the ticket.
Then Mr Kone left her and went away.
COMM: This was a very distressing experience for Mrs Toure, and she had
difficulty telling the court about what had happened.
APR: Mr Kone took me to a counter and the officer there stamped my passport
and then he, Mr Kone, took me to the plane and handed over my passport
and ticket, and then he went away and left me there.
40
COMM: It was difficult to hear exactly what the appellant was saying. The
interpreter used gestures to get her to speak louder and more slowly
but without success.
slowly, sir.
COMM: Next time MrsToure managed to speak distinctly, but she was becoming
more and more distressed as she repeated her story.
APR: First, Mr Kone took me to the counter and there the officer stamped my
passport...
COMM: This was the second time the interpreter had heard the story, so not
surprisingly she went quite fast in English when she gave a translation.
INT: First, Mr Kone and there the officer stamped my passport and then he,
Mr Kone, took me to the plane...
COMM: This was too fast for the adjudicator to write down the evidence.
ADJ: MrsTeytaud, please go a little more slowly. Remember that I am writing

INT: Sorry, sir...
CASE STUDY 2 PART 2

COMM: Now back to the appeal hearing.
passport, and then Mr Kone took me to the plane... I'm sorry I'll have to
ask the appellant to repeat the next bit.
ADJ: Please do that.
INT: Could you repeated what happened when you boarded the plane?
APP: The passport and ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
ADJ: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket? Or were they
INT: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket? Or were they taken
by someone else on the plane?
APP: You already know. He gave it to the attendant on the plane and left me there.
(Continues in local dialect.)
INT: I'm afraid the appellant has broken into dialect. I'll ask her to say that in
French.
ADJ: Please do so, MrsTeytaud.

41
APR: You already know. He gave it to the officer, to the attendant on the plane and
then he left me there.
INT: You already know. He gave it to the officer, to the attendant on the plane
and then he left me there.
COMM: The appellant is calmer now. And that part of her evidence is complete.
REVIEW
COMM: It hasn't been easy tor the interpreter. Let's go back a bit.
passport, and then Mr Kone took me to the plane...
COMM: After so many interruptions, she'd begun to forget the appellant's exact
words.
INT: I'm sorry. I'll have to ask the appellant to repeat the next bit.
ADJ: Yes. Please do that.
COMM: This meant a request to the appellant to repeat what she'd already said
twice.
APR: The passport and the ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
INT. The passport and the ticket were taken from Mr Kone.
COMM: The appellant couldn't be expected to use exactly the same words every
time. And now the adjudicator had to ask for clarification.
ADJ: Do you mean that you took the passport and the ticket or were they
INT: Do you mean that it was you who took the passport and the ticket from Mr
Kone, or that someone else on the plane took them?
COMM: Unfortunately, the appellant was now so distressed that she used a local
dialect not recognised by the court.
ADJ: You already know! He gave it to the attendant and then he left... (in local
dialect again) He left me there. (Continues in local dialect.)
COMM: She had to be asked to speak French, the language in use for the appeal
hearing.
INT; (To ADJ) I'll ask her to say that in French.
ADJ: Please do so Mrs Teytaud.

42
COMM: The interpreter's manner helped to calm the appellant without giving
any sense of taking her side in the appeal. And in this way the interpreter
helped to bring this difficult part of the hearing to a successful
conclusion.
THE ADJUDICATOR'S VIEW

COMM: What is the adjudicator's view?
QUALITIES
COMM: First, what qualities does the adjudicator look for in an interpreter?
ADJ: Well, I think the most important thing to remember is that the
interpreter is a professional. He's performing an extremely important
function in the process of the administration of justice that we are
concerned with in our jurisdiction. We rely upon interpreters in
immigration appeals to a very great extent. The majority of our
appellants do not have English as their first or native language and in
order for them to be able to put their case to us fairly, the use of the
interpreter is necessary - essential - and so we regard the interpreter
as one of our most important officers. And I'm very happy to say that
mostly they perform their responsibilities with skill and with distinction.
DIFFICULTIES
COMM: Next, what about the difficulties that an interpreter faces?
ADJ: I believe that the interpreter has an extremely arduous job: he may be
confronted and often is confronted with an appellant whose command
of his own language is not literary at all and who is not accustomed
perhaps to speaking in sentences and in phrases that are meant to be
repeated, let alone translated; yet the interpreter has got to be able to
convey to the adjudicator what the appellant is saying without distorting
it, without changing the meaning, without improving the quality of what
is being said, but at the same time trying to make sense of what is said.
Sometimes that can be an exceptionally difficult task.And all adjudicators
who have some knowledge of another language and who realise in the
individual case how difficult the appellant is being, the other witness is
beingjn terms of clarity, repetitiveness and so on, those of us who have
that certain degree of knowledge fully understand the difficulties the
interpreter is facing, but that is the skill which the interpreter is bringing
to bear in the discharge of his responsibilities.
AN EXAMPLE
COMM: Can you give a typical example?
ADJ: I suppose one of the most frequent would be the inexperienced

advocate [legal representative] who fails to appreciate that what he is
43
asking the appellant is going to have to be translated and translated
speedily and who therefore asks far too long a question.That poses the
interpreter with a very great difficulty, because he doesn't want to
interrupt if he can possibly avoid it, and yet there may be circumstances
in which his only chance of being able to discharge his job properly is to
stop the advocate in the middle of the question. When that arises he
must make it clear to the adjudicator that it's necessary for the question
to be broken down.
ASKING FOR HELP

COMM: When should an interpreter ask for help?
ADJ: The interpreter must always look to the adjudicator for help whenever
he or she feels she needs it.That is to say if there's any difficulty which
impedes the interpreter in discharging the job that he or she is there to
do, then she must at once make that plain to the adjudicator, and the
adjudicator's responsibility is to ensure that the interpreter is able to do
the task that he is there to do.
COMMON MISTAKES
COMM: What kind of mistakes do interpreters make?
ADJ: I suppose the first illustration would be the interpreter who translates
a sentence or an answer by saying 'he says that he did this'. Now the
most important responsibility of the interpreter is to convey to the
adjudicator the words used by the appellant, by the witness - not in
reported speech but in direct speech, as though the interpreter were
himself giving the answer, making allowances for the fact that it is a
translation, but it must not be given in reported speech. It must be the
witness speaking through the interpreter.
WATCHING THE PEN

COMM: Why is 'watching the pen' important?
ADJ: It sounds rather trite, but it really does hide a most important task for
the interpreter to remember, and that is that the evidence that the
witness is giving through the interpreter is going to be written down by
the adjudicator, probably, most of the time and the danger is that the
interpreter will speak so fast that the adjudicator is not able to do his
job of recording the evidence that is given in writing. By watching the
adjudicator's pen the interpreter can ensure that he is not going ahead
of things.
44
IMPARTIALITY
COMM: Do you ever find interpreters being partial or biased?
ADJ: Fortunately, it is very rare for an adjudicator to feel that an interpreter
is not being impartial. On the infrequent occasions where that may be
the case, it is usually the witness' representative - the appellant's
representative - who will indicate that there is a problem. If that doesn't
happen, certainly the adjudicator has a very clear responsibility, a judicial
responsibility, to ensure that the court official - and that is what the
interpreter is - is discharging his or her responsibilities with absolute
truthfulness and impartiality. One must be on the look out as an
adjudicator for indications that there may be a want of impartiality, for
example signs of impatience or disagreement expressed by the
interpreter, or interruptions of the answers being given in the original
language, indications like that must be something that an adjudicator
should be aware of and alert to and it may be the adjudicator's
responsibility to decide that this interpreter ought not to continue in
this particular case. But as I say, that is happily a very rare event.
BODY LANGUAGE
COMM: Can an interpreter's body language affect the outcome of an appeal?
ADJ: I find that a difficult question to answer, it is difficult for me to say what
kind of body language is acceptable between the interpreter and the
witness. It's generally desirable, I would say, for the interpreter not to
have any form of physical contact with the witness whose words he or
she is interpreting. Sometimes the temptation to do that is quite strong,
but in general it would be desirable to avoid it.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ADJUDICATOR

COMM: What should interpreters do if they have a problem with the
adjudicator?
ADJ: It's perfectly proper for an interpreter to indicate to the adjudicator that
some difficulty has arisen. Whether as a result of what the adjudicator
has said or done, or indeed for any other reason, anything that impedes
the interpreter in the discharge of his responsibilities is something which
the interpreter should draw to the attention of the adjudicator.
Adjudicators sometimes speak too fast, they sometimes don't allow
enough time for words to be interpreted and so on, if that happens the
interpreter should indicate the problem to the adjudicator. If an
interpreter feels a particular adjudicator is being unhelpful to an
unacceptable extent then that is something which the individual
interpreter should always take up with the Interpreter Manager after the
hearing.
45
AND FINALLY...
COMM: And finally...
ADJ: My key qualities for an interpreter are professional skills, linguistic
competence, a good clear speaking voice, patience and a reasonable
degree of lack of fatigue.
46
INTERPRETER'S CODE OF CONDUCT,
OATH AND AFFIRMATION
1 INTRODUCTION
Public Service Interpreters are expected to abide by the Code of Conduct to which they
are signatories.The standards in the Code set a framework for interpreting in the public
services, upheld if necessary by professional and impartial disciplinary procedures. The
objective of the Code of Conduct is to make sure that communication across language
and culture is carried out consistently, competently and impartially, and that all those
involved in the process are clear about what may be expected from it.
This Code of Conduct is registered with the Office of Fair Trading (Registration No. RMS/215 I).
2 COMPETENCE
Interpreters admitted to the register are expected to:
2.1 have a written and spoken command of both languages, including any specialist
terminology, current idioms and dialects;
2.2 understand the relevant procedures of the particular discipline in which they are
working;
2.3 maintain and develop their written and spoken command of English and the other
language;
2.4 be familiar with the cultural backgrounds of both parties.
3 PROCEDURE
Interpreters will:
3.1 interpret truly and faithfully what is said, without anything being added, omitted or
changed; in exceptional circumstances a summary may be given if requested, and
consented to by both parties;
3.2 disclose any difficulties encountered with dialects or technical terms, and if these
cannot be satisfactorily remedied, withdraw from the assignment;
3.3 not enter into the discussion, give advice or express opinions or reactions to any
of the parties;
3.4 intervene only
3.4.1 to ask for clarification
47
3.4.2 to point out that a party may not have understood something
3.4.3 to alert the parties to a possible missed cultural inference
3.4.4 to ask for accommodation for the interpreting process;
3.5 not delegate work, nor accept delegated work, without the consent of the client;
3.6 be reliable and punctual at all times;
3.7 must state (in a criminal trial) if they have been involved in interpreting at the police
station on the same case.
4 ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

Interpreters will
4.1 respect confidentiality at all times and not seek to take advantage of any
information disclosed during their work;
4.2 act in an impartial and professional manner;
4.3 not discriminate against parties, either directly or indirectly, on the grounds of race,
colour, ethnic origin, age, nationality, religion, gender or disability;
4.4 disclose any information, including any criminal record, which may make them
unsuitable in any particular case;
4.5 disclose immediately if the interviewee or immediate family is known or related;
4.6 disclose any business, financial, family or other interest which they might have in the
matter being handled;
4.7 not accept any form of reward, whether in cash or otherwise, for interpreting work
other than payment by the employer.
THE INTERPRETER'S OATH AND AFFIRMATION
Interpreter's oath
I swear by almighty God that I will well and faithfully interpret, and true explanation make
of all such matters and things as shall be required of me, according to the best of my skill
and understanding.
Interpreter's affirmation
I (Witness's full name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well
and faithfully interpret, and true explanation make of all such matters and things as shall
be required of me, according to the best of my skill and understanding.
48
INFORMATION AND FURTHER READING
Details about the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting and about the National
Register of Public Service Interpreters are available from:
Institute of Linguists, Saxon House, 48 Southwark Street, London SEI I UN
Tel:+44 1 7 1 940 3100 Fax:+44 1 7 1 940 3 1 0 1 email info@iol.org.uk
Useful websites and email discussion lists include:
http://www.iol.org.uk Institute of Linguists

http://lingwst.la.utk.edu/index.html Language in the Judicial Process
http://www.najit.org/intro.html National Association of Judiciary
Interpreters and Translators
http://lingwst.la.utk.edu/seligson.html (see * below)
http://www.wmin.ac.uk /LLC/languages University of Westminster (Languages)
forensic-linguistics@mailbase.ac.uk discussion list
majordomo@najit.org. send the command subscribe courtinterp-l
as the body of an e-mail message to
majordomo@najit.org
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, C, Corsellis A. and Harmer.A. (eds.) (1995) Basic Handbook for Trainers of Public
Service Interpreters Nuffield Foundation, London.
*Berk-Seligson S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, xii, 299; 15, tables, 4 figures, 6 appendices. ISBN 0
226 04373 8
Colin, J. and Morris, R. (1996) Interpreters in the Legal Process Waterside Press, Winchester.
FraserJ.E. (1996) 'Professional versus student behaviour', in C. Dollerup and A.

Lindegaard (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15-
16.
Gibbons, J. (1990) 'Applied linguistics in court' in Applied Linguistics I I (3), 229-237.
Gile, D. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Tro/n/ngVol. 8,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, xiv.
Hambrook.J. and LonerganJ. (1998) Interpreting Matters London: Connect ELT.
Lin.Y, Lei,T, Lonergan.J. et al (1999) Interpreting for Tomorrow Shanghai University

Foreign Languages Press.
49
Lippi-Green, R. (1994) 'Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in
the courts' in Language in Society 23 (2), 163-198.
Meara, P. (1997) review of Shuy, R.W.(I996) in Applied Linguistics 18 (I), 109.
Merrill, C. (1992) review of Berk-Seligson S. (1990) in Language in Society 21 (I), 147-

152.
Setton, R. (1994) 'Experiments in the application of discourse studies to interpreter

training', in C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183.
Shuy, R.W., (1996) Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the
Courtroom Oxford:
50

Interpreting Matters PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpreting Matters PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Interpreting Matters Video

Script Joe Hambrook

Interpreting Matters Book

© Connect ELT 1997

Activity book ISBN I 899399 56 9

CHAPTER 2 Dealing with Evidence

Case Study I Part 1 6

CHAPTER 3 Culture and Conduct

Case Study I Part 2 13

CHAPTER 4 Interacting with the Client

Case Study 2 Part I 18

CHAPTER 5 Dealing with Problems

Case Study 2 Part 2 24

Summary of Learning Points 28

CHAPTER 6 The Adjudicator's View 29

Appendix I Complete Video Script 36

Appendix 2 Interpreter's Code of Conduct 47

Oath and Affirmation

Information and further reading 49

Professor Jack Lonergan

Reference points of interest to public service interpreters are included in a series of

How to use Interpreting Matters

SECTION A Preview and Preparation

SECTION B Video study

SECTION C Learning points

SECTION D The interpreter's role

Each chapter is followed by the video transcript and answer key.

"'These notes refer to procedures in force in 1997. Appeals procedures

Participant Role Identification card

Clerk to the Court official responsible for (no identification card)

Home Office Home Office official who RESPONDENT

Interpreter Official interpreter hired by the (no identification card)

Clerk to the Other witnesses

Appellant's Home Office

Usually the hearing goes through the following stages:

Opening procedures (eg identification of appellant, interpreter, etc)

Presentation of appellant's case

Cross-examination by Home Office presenting officer

Presentation of Home Office presenting officer's case

Cross-examination by appellant's representative

ADJUDICATOR CLERK APPELLANT'S

HOME OFFICE APPELLANT INTERPRETER

ADJUDICATOR CLERK APPELLANT'S

HOME OFFICE APPELLANT INTERPRETER

CASE STUDY I PART I: MrVijay Malhotra

A PREVIEW and PREPARATION

The story so far

Watch the first part of Mr Malhotra's hearing.

2 What does the adjudicator do to help the interpreter?

3 How does the appellant then react to the representative's question?

1 all rise a find out

D THE INTERPRETER'S ROLE

CLERK: All rise.

ADJ: Please sit down.

REP: Yes sir.

ADJ: Good. (To HOPOj Mr Cooper?

HOPO: Yes sir.

ADJ: Good, very well. (To /NT) Mr Minhas, good morning.

INT: Morning, sir.

ADJ: Have you been able to speak to this appellant yet?

INT: I haven't sir, but I will with your permission.

ADJ: Please do so.